J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

Captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal' [hereinafter 'CMA' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] is a Statutory Appeal under Section 173 of 'the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'MV Act' for the sake of brevity] and it has been filed in this Court by an Insurance Company on 06.10.2023.

2. Captioned CMA is directed against an award dated 29.11.2022 made in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2013 on the file of 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvallur at Poonamalee (III Additional District and Sessions Court)' [hereinafter 'said MACT' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. It is to be noted that 'MACT' is an abbreviation of 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal'.

3. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that a road accident on 07.08.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. in Tiruttani - Tiruvallur National Highway is the epicenter of the captioned CMA; that on 07.08.2012, one Jayalakshmi was riding a bicycle in Tiruttani - Tiruvallur National Highway from East to West i.e., from Tiruvallur towards Tiruttani and the road accident occurred at Pattabiramapuram Bus Stop; that the road accident happened as a two wheeler i.e., TVS Apache Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-20-BJ- 2486 [hereinafter 'said two wheeler' for the sake of convenience] which was owned by Mr.S.Nagaraj (first respondent before said MACT and fourth respondent in the captioned CMA and it is to be noted that Mr.S.Nagaraj was riding said two wheeler on 07.08.2012) hit the cyclist (Jayalakshmi); that the cyclist Jayalakshmi sustained severe head injuries and died on the way to the Government Hospital, Tiruttani; that to put it differently, cyclist Jayalakshmi unfortunately succumbed to the injuries (inter alia head injuries) sustained in this road accident; that Jayalakshmi's spouse Mr.G.Baskaran, Son of K.Govindaraju and her two children namely, B.Kavipriya (daughter) and minor B.Sundaresan (son) filed a claim inter alia under Section 166 of MV Act in said MACT arraying Mr.S.Nagaraj and Insurance Company (Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Broadway, Chennai-108, which had insured the said two wheeler) as respondents 1 and 2; that this claim petition (MCOP No.1083 of 2013) was filed claiming a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs; that in the said MACT, first respondent Mr.S.Nagaraj remained ex parte but second respondent Insurance Company contested the matter; that it is to be noted, Insurance Company took out an application under Section 170 of MV Act, the prayer was acceded to and therefore, the Insurance Company took the defence which would have been taken by the owner and rider of the said two wheeler; that after full contest as between three claimants on one side and Insurance Company on the other side (to be noted, Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence before said MACT) said MACT made an 'award dated 29.01.2022' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity and convenience] inter alia awarding a sum of a little over Rs.16.03 Lakhs (16,03,600 INR to be precise); that the Insurance Company has filed the captioned CMA assailing the impugned award; that the captioned CMA is in the Admission Board before us today.

4. Mr.S.Senthilkumar, learned counsel on record for appellant -

Insurance Company, notwithstanding very many averments and grounds in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, predicated his campaign against the impugned award on two points and they are as follows:

(a) Said MACT erred in awarding consortium, as the accident took place on 07.08.2012 much before Pranay Sethi case [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680] was rendered by a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court on

31.10.2017;

(b) The deceased was a flower vendor and said MACT fell in error in fixing a notional monthly income for her at Rs.8,000/- per month.

5. To be noted, the three claimants have been arrayed as respondents

1 to 3 in the captioned CMA, Mr.